Well it appears to me that we have ourselves a bit of a conflict here at DDO. Now some of you may be aware that we live in a time now where so many things are pc.I believe that gays have every right to live and do as they please just like the rest of society does. But what about how they are addressed as people...............This is indeed a very slippery slope wouldn't you agree. The word (f@ggot) was used quite a bit back in the days when I was in school. It meant that you were someone who was a male and acted like a female basically. As time went along we realized that the guys who were this way, later on turned out to be gay. Times have changed and now there is a sensitive side to this issue and could cause harm. Do you think the F word is too strong ? I mean, its just casual term isn't it ? Or is it not. =) You tell me what you believe this to be. Because hate speech just might be too strong a word in itself.What do you think DDO. =)

As always, I believe human life is very precious and beautiful! I think it is wrong to simply be uncivilized to people with different ideas, thoughts, or beliefs I don't support or agree with a lot certain sect of people but I do not hate them either. I believe we are all sinful and should be treated in knowing that about each other (no one is flawless or perfect). I don't believe it's right that a person would call someone a name like that either. Many of you however; know where I stand on the issue of homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I will treat you any different than a heterosexual person. Simply because you are a human being. Morally speaking here, I believe all humans should respect one another in a sense of acknowledging that we are humans and not an animal, but as far as respecting your choices, I cannot do that, but again, doesn't have to be handled with hate or cruelty. Make sense?Feel free to ask questions if misunderstood or need more clarity. :)

Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad

Don't get me wrong, pejoratives have their place. For example, if your wife were to get pregnant with someone else's child (http://answers.yahoo.com...), it may be appropriate to call her a come-drunk wh*re or a fishy c**ch with floppy lips, or whatever else comes to mind that lets her know how you feel with your tongue and not your hands (http://www.imdb.com...).

...or not. Your call. You could just raise the child as your own, but then some people might have a pejorative of their own to describe that (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Either way, any of those applications of the quite functional pejorative (http://dictionary.reference.com...). On the other hand, a word that is used to disparage an entire group of people in addition to whomever you're criticizing is not quite the functional use of a pejorative. It is a special kind, called hate speech, which would make you the functional pejorative known as (http://dictionary.reference.com...).

Hate Speech

Given the previous points, it is probably best to steer clear of using words like "(http://dictionary.reference.com...)." This is because it is derogatory against all of homosexuals in addition to whomever you're trying to insult, because it's basically calling them a homosexual in a way that makes it a bad thing. It is not bad to be a homosexual. However, it is bad to be an (http://dictionary.reference.com...).

It meant that you were someone who was a male and acted like a female basically. As time went along we realized that the guys who were this way, later on turned out to be gay. Times have changed and now there is a sensitive side to this issue and could cause harm.

Times have changed, but causing harm is not one of the things that has changed; just the fact that anyone but homosexuals care about hurting their feelings. Just wanted to point that out.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 1/29/2014 1:42:47 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:Times have changed, but causing harm is not one of the things that has changed; just the fact that anyone but homosexuals care about hurting their feelings.

The grammar in this sentence is so bad that I read it four times, and instead of understanding it more, it just made my brain hurt.

At 1/29/2014 8:06:10 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:The grammar in this sentence is so bad that I read it four times, and instead of understanding it more, it just made my brain hurt.

I was tired, and have a cold just cut me some slack... I have carefully crafted a new set of sentences.. no charge enjoy!

At 1/27/2014 1:04:57 PM, inferno wrote:It meant that you were someone who was a male and acted like a female basically. As time went along we realized that the guys who were this way, later on turned out to be gay. Times have changed and now there is a sensitive side to this issue and could cause harm.

You're right, times have changed. However it is improbable that the use of derogatory terms like 'f@ggot' cause less harm now than they used to. What has changed is the fact that now people are sensitive to the sensitive side of this issue, and try to avoid harm where before they thought homosexuals deserved to be shamed and insulted.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 1/29/2014 8:16:23 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:You're right, times have changed. However it is improbable that the use of derogatory terms like 'f@ggot' cause less harm now than they used to. What has changed is the fact that now people are sensitive to the sensitive side of this issue, and try to avoid harm where before they thought homosexuals deserved to be shamed and insulted.

Times have changed, but causing harm is not one of the things that has changed; just the fact that anyone but homosexuals care about hurting their feelings. Just wanted to point that out.

What's the point of pointing that out exactly?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

Times have changed, but causing harm is not one of the things that has changed; just the fact that anyone but homosexuals care about hurting their feelings. Just wanted to point that out.

What's the point of pointing that out exactly?

There are slippery slopes in both directions, the line should not be drawn at offense for that is subjective but at the context and history of the term.

Neither f@ggot nor gay had anything to do with homosexuality they have been commandeered to respectively mean bad-homosexuality and good-homosexuality.

I try to avoid either term, this is not a fallacy of the moderation but a simple recognition that the term homosexual is the one with the accurate roots and value neutral connotation.

The only reason f@ggot would be unacceptable is if there was a better term that people intentionally did not use in favor of the one with more negative associations.

It is that intent to belittle or disrespect that causes harm. So I say it is important to remember that insulting homosexuality has not become more hurtful it has become less acceptable and so to has the use of terms only used towards that effect.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

Do you think disrespecting homosexuality as a sexual orientation is acceptable?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

Do you think disrespecting homosexuality as a sexual orientation is acceptable?

no, but I recognize that respect is earned. I wouldn't ask someone who found homosexuality disgusting and immoral to respect it just because I do.

Respect is earned? What does that even mean in this context?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

Do you think disrespecting homosexuality as a sexual orientation is acceptable?

no, but I recognize that respect is earned. I wouldn't ask someone who found homosexuality disgusting and immoral to respect it just because I do.

Respect is earned? What does that even mean in this context?

I mean the acceptability of categorically disparaging remarks depends on a person's judgement of that category.

There exists no right or wrong about a term without a right or wrong of what it refers to.

So yer saying it's okay to disparage gay people because you think being gay is wrong.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

Do you think disrespecting homosexuality as a sexual orientation is acceptable?

no, but I recognize that respect is earned. I wouldn't ask someone who found homosexuality disgusting and immoral to respect it just because I do.

Respect is earned? What does that even mean in this context?

I mean the acceptability of categorically disparaging remarks depends on a person's judgement of that category.

There exists no right or wrong about a term without a right or wrong of what it refers to.

So yer saying it's okay to disparage gay people because you think being gay is wrong.

No I'm saying if someone thinks being gay is wrong there is no independent logic which would make disparaging them wrong.

Besides the fact that doing so literally kills people right?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The question is not whether the word is acceptable but whether disrespecting a sexual orientation is acceptable.

Do you think disrespecting homosexuality as a sexual orientation is acceptable?

no, but I recognize that respect is earned. I wouldn't ask someone who found homosexuality disgusting and immoral to respect it just because I do.

Respect is earned? What does that even mean in this context?

I mean the acceptability of categorically disparaging remarks depends on a person's judgement of that category.

There exists no right or wrong about a term without a right or wrong of what it refers to.

So yer saying it's okay to disparage gay people because you think being gay is wrong.

No I'm saying if someone thinks being gay is wrong there is no independent logic which would make disparaging them wrong.

Besides the fact that doing so literally kills people right?

A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

At 1/29/2014 9:21:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:Dream, Noumena's right. If someone is insulted and abused (psychologically or physically) until that point where they kill themselves, some culpabilities lies with the abuser(s).

That is rarely a viewpoint shared by the abusers.

For instance, this is modified version of someone who spoke of a life and death issue involving his/her sexual orientation in relation to religion:

"Please help me. I am going through a lot of emotional and mental turmoil. I am not trolling or being insincere in any way. Please, I used to be part of a religion. I stopped going to the religious meetings, and renounced religion. But I also renounced GOD, I stopped believing he existed. Watching a few vids on Youtube made me change my mind, TODAY. And today I prayed to him, apologizing for ignoring him and blaming him for my hatred of religion. And that got me thinking of the reason I left religion in the first place. It was because the Christian Religion, especially the JW religion, says that homosexuality is wrong, and that God hates it. And that started making me feel not very good at all. I am wondering... Does God really hate us homosexuals? Or is it some men took the original Torah or Word of God or whatever and change it to suit them? I really want to know. I don't want to invoke God's wrath, but I want to live my life with the people I love without guilt or anguish. This is really... I really feel anguish typing this. I want to know. I hate nota knowing. please, does anyone know anyone I can talk to on this issue without getting RELIGION shoved down my throat. I want someone who is in touch with GOD but not really part of a religion, and not a false man of God. Please, someone. It is a matter of life and death. "

Would you say based on that alone that this person is being pushed to suicide (not saying he's there, but being pushed) by his religion? The people in that religion no doubt say he is backing himself into corner by being unwilling to give up his dream of a 'perverted' lifestyle and return to the fold as an especially tempted yet still loyal son of God.

F@ggot is just a juvenile, highly inappropriate way of disparaging gay people. It is no more acceptable that the n-word or any other class-based pejorative.

A pejorative is a term that expresses contempt or disapproval. Your statement resolves to a proscription against expressing contempt or disapproval for any class/category. Do you really stand by that?

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

At 1/29/2014 9:21:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:Dream, Noumena's right. If someone is insulted and abused (psychologically or physically) until that point where they kill themselves, some culpabilities lies with the abuser(s).

That is rarely a viewpoint shared by the abusers.

For instance, this is modified version of someone who spoke of a life and death issue involving his/her sexual orientation in relation to religion:

"Please help me. I am going through a lot of emotional and mental turmoil. I am not trolling or being insincere in any way. Please, I used to be part of a religion. I stopped going to the religious meetings, and renounced religion. But I also renounced GOD, I stopped believing he existed. Watching a few vids on Youtube made me change my mind, TODAY. And today I prayed to him, apologizing for ignoring him and blaming him for my hatred of religion. And that got me thinking of the reason I left religion in the first place. It was because the Christian Religion, especially the JW religion, says that homosexuality is wrong, and that God hates it. And that started making me feel not very good at all. I am wondering... Does God really hate us homosexuals? Or is it some men took the original Torah or Word of God or whatever and change it to suit them? I really want to know. I don't want to invoke God's wrath, but I want to live my life with the people I love without guilt or anguish. This is really... I really feel anguish typing this. I want to know. I hate nota knowing. please, does anyone know anyone I can talk to on this issue without getting RELIGION shoved down my throat. I want someone who is in touch with GOD but not really part of a religion, and not a false man of God. Please, someone. It is a matter of life and death. "

Would you say based on that alone that this person is being pushed to suicide (not saying he's there, but being pushed) by his religion? The people in that religion no doubt say he is backing himself into corner by being unwilling to give up his dream of a 'perverted' lifestyle and return to the fold as an especially tempted yet still loyal son of God.

On this alone I hesitate to make a call. I would not rule the possibility out.

F@ggot is just a juvenile, highly inappropriate way of disparaging gay people. It is no more acceptable that the n-word or any other class-based pejorative.

A pejorative is a term that expresses contempt or disapproval. Your statement resolves to a proscription against expressing contempt or disapproval for any class/category. Do you really stand by that?

A class based on arbitrary features (e.g. women, gay people, blacks, latinos, zoophiles, etc.) should not be pejoratively referenced. Criminals, however, are a class of people for which such terms can be applied because, on balance, they chose to enter that predicament.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

At 1/29/2014 9:21:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:Dream, Noumena's right. If someone is insulted and abused (psychologically or physically) until that point where they kill themselves, some culpabilities lies with the abuser(s).

That is rarely a viewpoint shared by the abusers.

For instance, this is modified version of someone who spoke of a life and death issue involving his/her sexual orientation in relation to religion:

"Please help me. I am going through a lot of emotional and mental turmoil. I am not trolling or being insincere in any way. Please, I used to be part of a religion. I stopped going to the religious meetings, and renounced religion. But I also renounced GOD, I stopped believing he existed. Watching a few vids on Youtube made me change my mind, TODAY. And today I prayed to him, apologizing for ignoring him and blaming him for my hatred of religion. And that got me thinking of the reason I left religion in the first place. It was because the Christian Religion, especially the JW religion, says that homosexuality is wrong, and that God hates it. And that started making me feel not very good at all. I am wondering... Does God really hate us homosexuals? Or is it some men took the original Torah or Word of God or whatever and change it to suit them? I really want to know. I don't want to invoke God's wrath, but I want to live my life with the people I love without guilt or anguish. This is really... I really feel anguish typing this. I want to know. I hate nota knowing. please, does anyone know anyone I can talk to on this issue without getting RELIGION shoved down my throat. I want someone who is in touch with GOD but not really part of a religion, and not a false man of God. Please, someone. It is a matter of life and death. "

Would you say based on that alone that this person is being pushed to suicide (not saying he's there, but being pushed) by his religion? The people in that religion no doubt say he is backing himself into corner by being unwilling to give up his dream of a 'perverted' lifestyle and return to the fold as an especially tempted yet still loyal son of God.

On this alone I hesitate to make a call. I would not rule the possibility out.

So if he showed up dead with a note that said "I couldn't take it" and you heard him say things like this before would you blame religion for his death?

F@ggot is just a juvenile, highly inappropriate way of disparaging gay people. It is no more acceptable that the n-word or any other class-based pejorative.

A pejorative is a term that expresses contempt or disapproval. Your statement resolves to a proscription against expressing contempt or disapproval for any class/category. Do you really stand by that?

A class based on arbitrary features (e.g. women, gay people, blacks, latinos, zoophiles, etc.) should not be pejoratively referenced. Criminals, however, are a class of people for which such terms can be applied because, on balance, they chose to enter that predicament.

Someone who chooses to commit sexual acts. Are pejoratives against people who commit certain acts (such as homosexual sex) acceptable?

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

Where do gay people stand in yer 'moral structure'? Is there a place for us?

At 1/29/2014 9:21:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:Dream, Noumena's right. If someone is insulted and abused (psychologically or physically) until that point where they kill themselves, some culpabilities lies with the abuser(s).

That is rarely a viewpoint shared by the abusers.

I wonder why.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

At 1/29/2014 9:21:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:Dream, Noumena's right. If someone is insulted and abused (psychologically or physically) until that point where they kill themselves, some culpabilities lies with the abuser(s).

That is rarely a viewpoint shared by the abusers.

For instance, this is modified version of someone who spoke of a life and death issue involving his/her sexual orientation in relation to religion:

"Please help me. I am going through a lot of emotional and mental turmoil. I am not trolling or being insincere in any way. Please, I used to be part of a religion. I stopped going to the religious meetings, and renounced religion. But I also renounced GOD, I stopped believing he existed. Watching a few vids on Youtube made me change my mind, TODAY. And today I prayed to him, apologizing for ignoring him and blaming him for my hatred of religion. And that got me thinking of the reason I left religion in the first place. It was because the Christian Religion, especially the JW religion, says that homosexuality is wrong, and that God hates it. And that started making me feel not very good at all. I am wondering... Does God really hate us homosexuals? Or is it some men took the original Torah or Word of God or whatever and change it to suit them? I really want to know. I don't want to invoke God's wrath, but I want to live my life with the people I love without guilt or anguish. This is really... I really feel anguish typing this. I want to know. I hate nota knowing. please, does anyone know anyone I can talk to on this issue without getting RELIGION shoved down my throat. I want someone who is in touch with GOD but not really part of a religion, and not a false man of God. Please, someone. It is a matter of life and death. "

Would you say based on that alone that this person is being pushed to suicide (not saying he's there, but being pushed) by his religion? The people in that religion no doubt say he is backing himself into corner by being unwilling to give up his dream of a 'perverted' lifestyle and return to the fold as an especially tempted yet still loyal son of God.

On this alone I hesitate to make a call. I would not rule the possibility out.

So if he showed up dead with a note that said "I couldn't take it" and you heard him say things like this before would you blame religion for his death?

You're putting words in my mouth. If there was a long history of him being persecuted by his faith, culminating in his suicide, I would say yes. From this though, I am not comfortable to say one way or the other.

F@ggot is just a juvenile, highly inappropriate way of disparaging gay people. It is no more acceptable that the n-word or any other class-based pejorative.

A pejorative is a term that expresses contempt or disapproval. Your statement resolves to a proscription against expressing contempt or disapproval for any class/category. Do you really stand by that?

A class based on arbitrary features (e.g. women, gay people, blacks, latinos, zoophiles, etc.) should not be pejoratively referenced. Criminals, however, are a class of people for which such terms can be applied because, on balance, they chose to enter that predicament.

Someone who chooses to commit sexual acts. Are pejoratives against people who commit certain acts (such as homosexual sex) acceptable?

You're assuming that all gay people have gay sex. Wrong. Calling a gay virgin a f@ggot is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to call any gay person a f@ggot because the insult isn't directed at them because they had sex with a guy, it's because they want to have sex with guys. That is something (desire) that isn't a choice.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 1/29/2014 7:19:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:A suicide is defined a person killing themselves. There is no way to condemn something inherent to a person's psychology without offending them.

What kind of a response is that exactly? "Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"?

It is a response, take it as you will. Yes you can't call something immoral without implying that someone who openly admits to it is immoral. If calling something immoral (through a derogatory term, or directly) makes someone feel persecuted and subsequently they commit suicide, and you wish to blame that suicide on the condemnation then there is no way to make moral condemnations without risking killing someone.

Would you feel at all responsible if you caused someone to commit suicide like this?

That's a fallacy of complex question. If I did not feel responsible it would be because I don't accept responsibility for the suicide, i.e. I didn't 'cause' it.

and no I wouldn't feel responsible for someone else taking their own life. If there is truly no place for them in my moral structure I must admit to wanting them gone from the world.

Where do gay people stand in yer 'moral structure'? Is there a place for us?

Only acts can be (socially) immoral, not thoughts or desires. I don't need to know anything about homosexuality to say there is a place for a category of people which does not imply and absolute behavior what so ever. I also have no objection to consenting homosexual acts done with reasonable care to avoid harm.

I think I said this already, my views on homosexuality aren't the point; the point is that you can't side step having to defend homosexuality (acts included) if you really want to make blanket condemnations of blanket condemnations of homosexuality.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.